While the CRC's predecessor, PIIAC, sent two cases to City Council with recommendations for "Sustained" findings (in 1997), and Council added a "Sustained" finding in a third case (in 2001), Chiefs Moose and Kroeker refused to accept those recommendations (see PPRs #13&24). Thus, as far as we know, these findings are the first to be changed in Portland based on citizen input without being reversed.
However, considering the range of allegations which come before the CRC, including retaliation, disparate treatment and use of excessive force, the "Sustained" findings pertain to relatively minor acts of misconduct.
They were: An officer acted discourteously (when he said he didn't care if a woman was "7 months pregnant or 25 months pregnant," case #01-10--PPR #26); and an officer drove recklessly (by pulling out without proper use of overhead lights, case #01-17--PPR #27).
Meanwhile, in five months between August and December, the CRC only heard six cases in pre- hearings, sending three to full hearings.
Case #02-17 -- Man misidentified and roughed up moves from rejection to full hearing
Case 02-17, in which Merrick Bonneau, a slender man of mixed racial heritage, was mistaken for his larger, white half-brother and roughly taken into custody, was originally declined by two CRC members in consultation with IPR Director Richard Rosenthal. While the case has already gained some renown due to a dispute over a proposed settlement (PPR #25), Bonneau's claims should have been enough to challenge the conclusions of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD). The Bureau's findings included a "debriefing" for two officersnot for mistaking Bonneau's identity or roughing him up, but because they did not bring more officers on the scene to overpower the suspect.
The CRC reversed the declination, and held a pre-hearing on September 17. With regard to the excessive force allegation, CRC presenters quoted the IAD's disposition letter four times that "no firearm was used, no baton was used, and you were not kicked, punched, or subjected to pepper spray." However, Bonneau's claim was that officers piled on him, pulled his arms back until they were perpendicular to his body, and carried him by the chain connecting his hand and leg cuffs, causing him injury.
When Bonneau's attorney spoke at the pre-hearing, CRC member Bob Ueland asked the attorney if she was being paid to represent Mr. Bonneau, and what the legal status of his case was. Similar questions have never been asked of IAD personnel, who we understand are paid for their attendance at these hearings. In addition, the CRC had access to reports from both the criminal hearing (in which Bonneau was found not guilty of the single charge of resisting arrest) and the civil hearing (including full transcripts and recordings) and was fully aware that the civil litigation was still pending.
After a unanimous vote to hear the case, the CRC first decided to wait until the pending litigation was settled to hold the full hearing, although some members wanted to hear the case sooner. In November, IPR Director Rosenthal suggested that the case be heard without further delay, repeating that once the decision was made to hear the case, there was no reason to wait. The group agreed. On December 17, the Committee held a three-and-a-half-hour hearing, voting to send the case back to IPR to redo the intake interview and re-categorize the allegations.
Case #02-22, "I'm sorry if this makes you feel unsafe, because it should not."
A second case in which Portland Police mistook a man for his brother was returned to IAD for some further investigation after CRC held a pre-hearing (in July) and a hearing (in September). The appellant alleges that he was given wrongful traffic citations, was racially profiled, and continues to be harassed in the form of being pulled over numerous times and followed.
The IAD's disposition letter in this case shows extreme insensitivity to the appellant's allegation that the police were harassing him by following his car. IAD Captain Darrell Schenck advised him that "there is no misconduct in simply following you" and "I'm sorry if this makes you feel unsafe, because it should not." Schenck repeated such patronizing comments at the CRC hearing. IPR Director Rosenthal (who otherwise often sides with the Bureau) explained to Captain Schenck that while there is no inherent misconduct in officers trying to gather information on suspects, if they are targeting an individual just to "get him" that could be misconduct.
According to Schenck, the officer in case 02-22 did not stop the appellant immediately for speeding, but rather followed him "to see if there's a pattern of careless driving."
Unfortunately, the CRC's decision in this case was to sweep aside the two more serious and perhaps more easily provable allegations-- that the officer harassed the appellant by following him for two miles before citing him for traffic offenses he did not commit (a traffic court upheld only one of two alleged violations) and that the officer stopped the appellant based on racial profiling.
Nobody in the CRC asked, "Would a white, middle class person be treated the same way as the appellant was treated?" Instead, both Director Rosenthal and Captain Schenck dismissed the Disparate Treatment complaint since there were no specific racial epithets used.
The CRC did send back for investigation the allegations that officers have been repeatedly pulling over and questioning the appellant, and that one specific officer intimidates the appellant by pulling around to watch every time he sees him on the road. At least two of the man's three sons were witnesses to every incident in the complaint.
The preliminary investigation into this case revealed that the appellant's brother is wanted by the police and has used the appellant's name as an alias. It also revealed that the database providing this information specifically cautions officers not to mistake the appellant for his brother (who is younger and has a scar). CRC member Ric Alexander pointed out that the existence of this notation indicates that the appellant has been pulled over mistakenly before.
Case #02-24: Should community "care-taking" include being yelled at and thrown into a police car?
The appellant in case #02-24 alleged that police unlawfully entered his apartment with "beanbag" shotguns, took him into custody using excessive force, hid his air pistol in a closet, improperly searched his apartment, got "in his face" and took him into custody in his pajamas.
The officers involved in this case claimed they had enough justification to use police "community care-taking" rights to make a "Civil Hold" on the appellant. This was based on information from family members who called the police, concerned for the appellant's well-being.
At the hearing in November, the CRC narrowly voted (5-3) to uphold the IAD's refusal to investigate this case. Director Rosenthal supported CRC members who called attention to discrepancies in the officer's report and the appellant's testimony which suggested, at the least, that the officer filed an inaccurate report. However, the Committee failed to find a majority vote to support adding an allegation regarding this disturbing possibility.
Many of the original eight allegations may have been proven or disproven based on further investigation, specifically an interview with the apartment manager, who may or may not have unlocked the door for the police and/or witnessed the entire incident. Whether the police were let in or forced their way in may have had a bearing on how the rest of the incident unfolded.
The appellant in 02-24 alleged he received bruises from being handcuffed and (in his letter to the IPR) that he was "literally thrown into the back of a police car." Whether or not the officers were justified in taking the appellant into custody, the use of force still needs to be limited to the minimum amount necessary. (See sidebar for case #02-25, another case in which an appellant alleged excessive force on a civil hold.)
IAD admitted that officers probably hid the appellant's air pistol in a closet, an action which seems contradictory to taking him in for his own safety.
With regard to the allegation that the officers "got in his face," the appellant's written testimony raised the question of whether the officers on the scene had Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. If the officers did yell at the appellant, which the IAD said was "appropriate" if the appellant was not complying with officer commands, they were probably not trained in de- escalation tactics taught to the CIT.
Although there was a considerably long public pre-hearing on this case in August, the CRC moved the entire hearing into "Executive Session" at the request of the appellant. While Executive Session, part of Oregon's Public Meetings Law, allows the public to be excluded from hearings which involve people's personnel, medical, or other specific protected information, one of the main reasons to have a civilian review board is to have an open and public process to examine issues of police misconduct.
IPR staff and the City Attorney's office cited that the hearing was to review a complaint about the employment history of public employees (the police officers), and unless those employees asked for an open hearing, the session could be closed. The question was never raised as to whether the officers were consulted on this case, not that it matters since officers are referred to as "A" and "B" and not by name.
The media is not excluded from Executive Sessions, but cannot report on any information that is protected under the state law. The members of Copwatch who attend CRC meetings are also members of Flying Focus Video Collective (FFVC), which videotapes the meetings, produces programs on police misconduct and other issues, and provides our video stills. FFVC has filed a complaint about this use of Executive Session.
For more information, contact the IPR at 503-823-0146.
Flying Focus can be
reached at
503-239-7456.
Peopl
e's Police Report
#28 Table of Contents
People's Police
Report
Index Page
Return to
Copwatch
home page